He took out four ads to determine the relative importance of physical attractive-
ness and financial success in the dating game. One was from a beautiful waitress (high
attractiveness, low financial success); one was from an average-looking female lawyer
(low attractiveness, high success). One was from a handsome male taxicab driver (high
attractiveness, low success), and the final one was from an average-looking male
lawyer (low attractiveness, high success). While about ten times more men than
women replied to the ads at all, the two ads that received the most replies from their
intended audience were for the beautiful waitress and the average-looking male lawyer.
Goode concluded that in the dating marketplace, women and men often rank poten-
tial mates differently, with men seeking beauty and women seeking financial security.
While these were interesting findings, many sociologists question Goode’s research
methods (Saguy, 2002). Goode defended his behavior by saying that the potential
daters didn’t know that they were responding to fake ads, and that therefore, no harm
was done, because people often receive no reply when they respond to ads. But ask
yourself: Did he have to deceive people to find this out? How else might he have
obtained this information? Do you think he crossed a line?
In every research project, you must constantly balance the demands of the research
(and your own curiosity) against the rights of the research subjects. This is a delicate
balance, and different people may draw their lines in different places. But to cause
possible harm to a research subject is not only unethical; it is also illegal.Social Science Methods in
Methodologies Century: Emergent
Methodologies
New technologies provide opportunities for new research methods. For example, a
new methodology called “field experiments” combines some of the benefits of both
field methods and experimental research. On the one hand, they are experiments,
using matched pairs and random assignment, so that one can infer causality. On the
other hand, they take place “in the field,” that is, in real-life situations. You’ve prob-
ably seen field experiments reported on television, because they often reveal hidden
biases in employment, housing markets, or consumer behavior.
Here are some examples of how field methods reveal biases and discrimination
in employment, housing, and consumerism. Matched pairs of prospective “car buy-
ers” go to an auto showroom, or prospective “tenants” walk into a real estate office,
or “job seekers” answer a “help wanted” ad. In each case, the prospects consist of a
White couple and a minority couple, or a man and a woman. They go to the same
showroom, and look at the same cars, and get very different price quotes. Or the White
couple is shown several houses that are listed with the real estate broker, but the Black
couple is told they’ve been rented or sold. And while a male and female applicant
answered the same job ad, the male job applicant is told about a managerial open-
ing and the female applicant is given a typing test. Because the experiment was con-
ducted in real time in real life, the discrimination is readily evident, because the only
variable that was different was race or gender. (When shown on TV, the news reporter
will often go back to the car showroom or real estate office with videotape made by
the participants and confront the dealer or agent with the evidence of their discrim-
ination.) Recently, field experiments have revealed what minorities had long suspected
but could never prove: They are discriminated against by taxi drivers who do not stop
for them (Ayres and Siegelman, 1995; Cross et al., 1990; Yinger, 1995).134 CHAPTER 4HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW? THE METHODS OF THE SOCIOLOGIST